What happens if you only specify the network gateway on the bonded connection, and not on the underlying interfaces?
Beiträge von Johnny.Fiama
-
-
I missed that comment in your initial post. Do you really need the OMV web interface on port 80 or even reverse proxy to it?
Again you're right, there is no need for the reverse proxy of port 80.
My idea is to reverse proxy one or two http only services (eg. airsonic) and also several https services that utilise self-signed certificates (including OMV). I'll introduce a LetsEncrypt certificate and a host override on my pfSense DNS resolver to force local traffic to my Nginx instance, which if configured correctly, will serve up everything via one domain name (hope to use routes). I like the idea of this setup since it means certificate management need only happen in one place.
Unfortunately I am not an expert with Nginx, OMV, LetEncrypt or pfSense ...this should be fun, though painfully aware that I must be careful not to expose the wrong routes/applications to the public web!
-
Why not move the OMV web interface to a different port?
You're right, and actually this was something I mused over in my initial post.
Reflecting on the "firewall" option - I'm not sure how that would work, since it is the binding of the OMV service that causes the problem, rather than clients being able to access the port.
-
Thank you both for your feedback - Appreciate and accept this isn't doable at present, but would like to think future OMV iterations will support the feature.
I'll investigate the proposed firewall option, if it doesn't block the use of these ports by Docker then it is almost certainly the easiest way to achieve my goal.
-
Apologies if this has been asked before, I have searched but was unable to turn up anything useful.
I'm running a virtualised OMV instance (atop Proxmox) configured with two VirtIO NICs, idea being to use one of those interface addresses for Docker containers, the first of which will be a reverse proxy (Nginx).
Initial tests suggest that OMV binds the WebUI to all interface IPv4 addresses, on ports 80 & 443 (the most useful of ports). How do I prevent this from occurring, is there an option to specify the interface, or if not can this be achieved within some config file? Realise that I could change the default OMV ports and use the reverse proxy, but that feels a bit ugly and perhaps unintuitive from a maintenance standpoint.
Many thanks
-
Thanks @ryecoaaron - Really appreciate your input, I had suspected the i5 might perform better but needed confirmation of that fact. On cost there’s little difference between them and in terms of reusability the Qotom seems infinitely more flexible, especially when factoring in all those Intel NICs (product page).
-
I'm in need of some expert advice on a home NAS solution, in short I would appreciate community input over whether ARM or an x86/64 build best suits my use case.
Here’s a list of currently known plugin/service requirements:
- Subsonic (multiple concurrent clients, audio only but with some FLAC transcoding)
- MiniDLNA (one or two concurrent clients)
- BTSync (might favour non-ARM CPUs?)
- iSCSI (for experimentation)
I have 2 x 2TB external USB 3.0 HDD’s which should be reused, ideally without liberation from their OEM housing, even if that might help with heat and thus lifespan.Two hardware options currently under consideration:
- Qotom i5-5250U | 8GB RAM | 128GB SSD | £265
- ODROID XU4 | 2GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 16GB eMMC (OS) | Cloudshell Case | £230
I’ve good experience with Qotom in an earlier pfSense router build, so this is a platform I would happily revisit if suitable for the job. However ODROID and ARM would be new territory, frustratingly it seems impossible to get a good feel for comparative performance against them and more traditional Intel architectures …multiple cores but with more limited instruction sets, and perhaps with ODROID some thermal issues.Thanks everyone, please let me know your thoughts.
